Declining world population by 2070

Article says that the rate of global population increase is declining and at the current rate the total world population will peak at between 9 Billion and 10 Billion around the year 2070. At that point the global population will plateau (according to the UN) or begin to decline (according to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis).

Which of the following is likely to occur? You may choose more than one.

A. The global economy will stagnate.
B. There will be many new job openings caused by more deaths than births; unemployment will drop to near zero and the economy will boom, thus proving anti-immigrant economics correct.
C. The decline in the number of people spewing carbon into the atmosphere and using natural resources will reverse global warming and heal the planet.
D. The Keynesians will react to global economic stagnation by cutting down trillions of trees (thus offsetting C) to print quadrillions of dollars.
E. Cyborg Bill Gates and the other population control freaks will party like it's 1999.
F. China will institute a mandatory 5 child policy.
G. Farmers will be left producing a surplus of food for a population that no longer exists; Big agra will lobby the government to prop up food prices by buying up the surplus and destroying it.
H.

Unfortunately, as an economic trend or investment thesis, this can only be described as glacial.

Welfare states and statist policies destroy nations demographically. Look at Europe and Japan there populations are shrinking and aging. Even worse in former Soviet states. In free societies and free markets where people prosper birth rates explode and the economies do with them.

I think we are going to see major depression and famines in the 21st century. It will almost certainly end with a population smaller than today. How long will nuclear weapons be off the table when the last surviving witnesses of their use are long dead?

Article says that the rate of global population increase is declining and at the current rate the total world population will peak at between 9 Billion and 10 Billion around the year 2070. At that point the global population will plateau (according to the UN) or begin to decline (according to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis).

It's funny when the standard of living increases people actually want less kids. I don't know why, but that's a different topic.

A. The global economy will stagnate.

Today's "recession" will be the 'good ol' days' ten years from now, then those even more nightmarish economic conditions will be a dream compared to twenty years from now and so on. A whole world in debt doesn't make mathematical sense in any economic paradigm I know.

E. Cyborg Bill Gates and the other population control freaks will party like it's 1999.

I find it funny when liberals piss and moan about the standard of living increasing for much of the world and the carbon footprint it will create. As if we need the 'underclass' to live in misery that way Happy Feet and the Coca Cola bear have somewhere to live.

F. China will institute a mandatory 5 child policy.

They'll do it if it gives the government more control over the people. lol

G. Farmers will be left producing a surplus of food for a population that no longer exists; Big agra will lobby the government to prop up food prices by buying up the surplus and destroying it.

The government will definitely do stupid price fixing measures.

The only hope for the "shop til you drop" economic crowd is that the 21st century's greatest invention will be a new economic paradigm that will some how justify, erase, or allow us to live with the debt without harming us. I don't see how it's possible and most likely we'll see everything go to Hell, Jesus come back, etc.

Welfare states and statist policies destroy nations demographically. Look at Europe and Japan there populations are shrinking and aging. Even worse in former Soviet states. In free societies and free markets where people prosper birth rates explode and the economies do with them.

Only statists want small aging dying populations. Easier to control.

Just curious as to what historical evidence you have to back up your claim. The view I most tend to agree with is that birth rates have more to do with how developed a country's economy is, rather than how free (because the vast majority of countries with high birth rates also have a very low degree of personal and economic freedom). I think in economically disadvantaged countries, the work there is more labor-intensive and thus it is to a person's advantage to have more children, while in the developed world, children become financial liabilities due to the high degree of labor specialization. The education required for such labor is much more expensive.

Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 01-12-2013 at 01:47 PM.

"The strategic adversary is fascism... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us."
Michel Foucault

Welfare states and statist policies destroy nations demographically. Look at Europe and Japan there populations are shrinking and aging. Even worse in former Soviet states. In free societies and free markets where people prosper birth rates explode and the economies do with them.

Only statists want small aging dying populations. Easier to control.

Actually, as economies mature the birth rate tends to decline. In older times, the whole family was needed to survive and the more members you had, the better for your family. Plus you needed more "replacement" kids as they were likely to die young as well. As economies grew, a family needed fewer members to earn enough to get by so they have had fewer children. Note that higher birthrates are found in poorer countries and lower birth rates in wealthier ones.

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

Just curious as to what historical evidence you have to back up your claim. The view I most tend to agree with is that birth rates have more to do with how developed a country's economy is, rather than how free (because the vast majority of countries with high birth rates also have a very low degree of personal and economic freedom). I think in economically disadvantaged countries, the work there is more labor-intensive and thus it is to a person's advantage to have more children, while in the developed world, children become financial liabilities due to the high degree of labor specialization (and thus the education required for such labor is much more expensive).

This, and I'll add that in a smaller more mechanized society there are more resources per person.